Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Antoon Pardon Date : Wed Sep 21 2005 07:43 am Op 2005-09-20, William schreef : > "Antoon Pardon" wrote in message > news:slrndivbls.4tm.apardon@rcpc42.vub.ac.be... >> Op 2005-09-19, William schreef : >> > "Antoon Pardon" wrote in message >> > news:slrndita90.4tm.apardon@rcpc42.vub.ac.be... >> >> >> >> The glory. As far as I understand human nature, very few people try to >> >> invent something to get rich. Fame and glory seem to be more involved. >> > >> > I don't think the history of invention supports that idea very >> > well. Most of the industrial era's inventors had money on their >> > minds from early on. Otherwise, why would the Wright brothers, >> > for one example, have spent so much effort to guarantee a profit >> > from manned, powered flight? They could have gotten the glory >> > much more easily if they hadn't been so secretive for so long. >> >> I'm not so sure. The wright brothers were not the only ones >> trying to develop a flying machine. Going public too early >> might have given others a bigger chance to come with a superior >> design and thus win the glory. > > And after the glory came the lawsuits to defend their patents, > and, hence, profits. Why bother if all they were after was > glory? The fact that people have other motivations for developing something, doesn't contradict that once they did develop something, they also like to earn from it. > Having studied the history of invention as a hobby for decades > I haven't find too many inventors who were motivated by glory. > Most sought out profits from the get-go even if the spark was > to solve a problem they were personally experiencing. Certainly, > very few inventions became practical except in pursuit of > profits. I'm not convinced, once an invention became pratical, it would result in profits, and I understand that people would then also prefer that it ears them money. That doesn't mean it became practical in pursuit of profits. >> > (The woman who invented the dishwasher springs to mind, >> > but having provided herself with an adequate tool to wash her >> > valuable dishes safely, further development seems to have been >> > purely profit-motivated. >> >> By whom? As far as I understand those that did the actual >> further developmant are mostly people in pay service. > > Working for a company started by Mrs. Cochrane (which we > know as KitchenAid) with the goal of profiting from her > invention. What's your point? Inventors rarely work alone. > (They usually don't have all the skills needed to go from > idea to production.) -Wm My point is that it weren't the further developers that were profiting. The developers were just people in loan-services. I know of a number or companies, were people developed things, that made their jobs easier and it ended up being practical too because otherwise it wouldn't have really made their jobs easier. They may have ended up with a bonus, but that wasn't the motivation. -- Antoon Pardon .